Law Commons^™

There Is No Archbishop Of Science - A Comment On Elliot's Toward Incentive-Based Procedure: Three Approaches For Regulating Scientific Evidence, Robert L. Schwartz

Faculty Scholarship

As is usual when Professor Elliott writes about turning retrospective judge-oriented procedural rules into prospective attorney-oriented procedural incentives, his proposal for dealing with scientific testimony not accepted within the scientific community is both interesting and provocative. It also serves as an apology for those judges who are so in awe of science that they believe that only they or their peers in the scientific establishment-and not the common folk selected for jury service-are likely to understand the complex truths that science yields. Professor Elliott starts with the assumption that there is a need for some kind of judicial intervention to …